How is depth graded/scored?
- Thread starter davab
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
David Connor SE
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2015
- Messages
- 248
- Reaction score
- 92
My guess is there is certain things they are looking for and if you get 1/2 of the things they are looking for, you get 1/2 credit for that. But hard to know the threshold for acceptable, need improvement, unacceptable, etc.
I do know that you can reference tables in the codes (i.e. tables in AISC Steel Manual, etc.) to more quickly solve problems. You don't have to show all the calculations necessary to get to a value that is already tabulated in the code.
I do know that you can reference tables in the codes (i.e. tables in AISC Steel Manual, etc.) to more quickly solve problems. You don't have to show all the calculations necessary to get to a value that is already tabulated in the code.
I posted this email correspondence on a previous thread but thought it might be useful to you here. This is a reply from a helpful employee from NCEES following an inquiry I sent similar to yours.
"As you know, NCEES does not release numeric exam scores; component results are reported as acceptable or unacceptable only. Therefore, when a results notice informs a candidate as having unacceptable results, it was for the entire component (morning and afternoon portions). There is no "pass" or "fail" of the morning (AM) or afternoon (PM) portion separately. A candidate must perform at a minimum acceptable level in the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) in order to receive acceptable results for the entire component. While a very good performance in the morning is capable of helping a poor performance in the afternoon (and vice versa) a small amount, a candidate must still perform at a certain level on both AM and PM portions in order to achieve acceptable results for a component. So there are minimum levels that must be achieved in both portions. It is not required to get 40/40 in the morning or all "Acceptables" in the afternoon and there are many combinations of both portions where a candidate can achieve an acceptable component result, but I am unable to provide you with what those combinations are. I am unable to say that a candidate "passed" the AM and "failed" the PM (or vice versa) because NCEES does not release numeric scores or inform candidates of "how many" questions (AM or PM) they needed to get right in order to achieve acceptable results for a component or if they met the minimum required performance for the AM or PM portion.The diagnostic a candidate receives for the AM portion shows candidates how many questions they got correct in each knowledge area and provides an un-scaled graphical representation of how that performance compares to the performance of the average passing candidate. The diagnostic received for the PM portion indicates if a candidate demonstrated minimum competence (Acceptable) or did not demonstrate minimum competence (Improvement Required or Unacceptable). In the latter, Improvement Required is better than Unacceptable in that a little knowledge was demonstrated regarding the subject matter, but still not enough. The quantitative values of Acceptable, Improvement required, and Unacceptable is not shared with candidates.Finally, the Structural Engineering exam is PASSED when a candidate has achieved acceptable results on BOTH components (vertical and lateral) of the exam. This does not have to be done in one exam administration ("sitting" as you referred to it). Upon achieving acceptable results on one component, a candidate then has 5 years to achieve acceptable results on the remaining component. On the other hand, acceptable results for a component are achieved when a candidate has met the minimum required performance on BOTH the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) portion of that component. That, unlike PASSING the entire exam, must be accomplished in one administration. There is no carryover of a morning (AM) or afternoon (PM) performance to another administration."
"As you know, NCEES does not release numeric exam scores; component results are reported as acceptable or unacceptable only. Therefore, when a results notice informs a candidate as having unacceptable results, it was for the entire component (morning and afternoon portions). There is no "pass" or "fail" of the morning (AM) or afternoon (PM) portion separately. A candidate must perform at a minimum acceptable level in the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) in order to receive acceptable results for the entire component. While a very good performance in the morning is capable of helping a poor performance in the afternoon (and vice versa) a small amount, a candidate must still perform at a certain level on both AM and PM portions in order to achieve acceptable results for a component. So there are minimum levels that must be achieved in both portions. It is not required to get 40/40 in the morning or all "Acceptables" in the afternoon and there are many combinations of both portions where a candidate can achieve an acceptable component result, but I am unable to provide you with what those combinations are. I am unable to say that a candidate "passed" the AM and "failed" the PM (or vice versa) because NCEES does not release numeric scores or inform candidates of "how many" questions (AM or PM) they needed to get right in order to achieve acceptable results for a component or if they met the minimum required performance for the AM or PM portion.The diagnostic a candidate receives for the AM portion shows candidates how many questions they got correct in each knowledge area and provides an un-scaled graphical representation of how that performance compares to the performance of the average passing candidate. The diagnostic received for the PM portion indicates if a candidate demonstrated minimum competence (Acceptable) or did not demonstrate minimum competence (Improvement Required or Unacceptable). In the latter, Improvement Required is better than Unacceptable in that a little knowledge was demonstrated regarding the subject matter, but still not enough. The quantitative values of Acceptable, Improvement required, and Unacceptable is not shared with candidates.Finally, the Structural Engineering exam is PASSED when a candidate has achieved acceptable results on BOTH components (vertical and lateral) of the exam. This does not have to be done in one exam administration ("sitting" as you referred to it). Upon achieving acceptable results on one component, a candidate then has 5 years to achieve acceptable results on the remaining component. On the other hand, acceptable results for a component are achieved when a candidate has met the minimum required performance on BOTH the morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) portion of that component. That, unlike PASSING the entire exam, must be accomplished in one administration. There is no carryover of a morning (AM) or afternoon (PM) performance to another administration."
If it isn't clear by now, the grading methodology for the afternoon problems is a mystery.
My understanding is that the graders aren't necessarily looking for a correct numerical answer, as much as they're looking to see if you have proper comprehension and application of the relevant code provisions for each problem.
Titleistguy
Well-known member
Having no knowledge of the grading but having sat for each vert and lat once I'll say this...
Problems I thought I nailed, showed work, code references, and so on... I got an U on.
Problems that I was less sure on, or maybe time crunched I outlined with basic steps , code references, and min /max checks. I figured I'd fail those.... nope got a A or I on those.
Moral here .... numbers almost dont matter....to a point obviously.
But thinking and steps are everything.
Another thing I've sorta gleaned talking with people is that if you dont know a subject cold, then vague / outlining is your friend. Not a sure thing but here's an example of what I mean ...
If a problem wanted the base shear of a structure, let's pretend it had greater than 30 psf snow and some heavy floors ...
You could go thru all the ELF and accidentally forget to account for the dead and snow loads in your seismic weight...which is a fundamental miss. That may be bad.
But if crunched for time and you state:
Determine Site specific parameters per...
Determine Site class per....
Determine seismic wt per ....
Determine period, seismic design cat. , Cs, and so on...
Then you say ... bc of time you state, assume W= 150 kips or some reasonable fraction [or whatever makes sense in context] ...
You'll lose similar points for both and I'm fairly certain you'd get docked a bit harder in the first one where to were trying to give an exact solution but missed something by accident ...
So from my experience, is be detailed but there aren't points for significant digits.... for example when dealing with wind and maybe you need to do a double interpolation ... and just don't have the time, just state, typically you'd double interpolate blah blah blah... but assume worst case number. [Maybe you're between 160 and 180 in a CC table and between two different heights kind of thing.
You'll get almost full marks for skipping the tedium. The numbers are like the points in the old tv show... "Who's Line Is It Anyways" ...
My two cents... rounded to a nickel.
Problems I thought I nailed, showed work, code references, and so on... I got an U on.
Problems that I was less sure on, or maybe time crunched I outlined with basic steps , code references, and min /max checks. I figured I'd fail those.... nope got a A or I on those.
Moral here .... numbers almost dont matter....to a point obviously.
But thinking and steps are everything.
Another thing I've sorta gleaned talking with people is that if you dont know a subject cold, then vague / outlining is your friend. Not a sure thing but here's an example of what I mean ...
If a problem wanted the base shear of a structure, let's pretend it had greater than 30 psf snow and some heavy floors ...
You could go thru all the ELF and accidentally forget to account for the dead and snow loads in your seismic weight...which is a fundamental miss. That may be bad.
But if crunched for time and you state:
Determine Site specific parameters per...
Determine Site class per....
Determine seismic wt per ....
Determine period, seismic design cat. , Cs, and so on...
Then you say ... bc of time you state, assume W= 150 kips or some reasonable fraction [or whatever makes sense in context] ...
You'll lose similar points for both and I'm fairly certain you'd get docked a bit harder in the first one where to were trying to give an exact solution but missed something by accident ...
So from my experience, is be detailed but there aren't points for significant digits.... for example when dealing with wind and maybe you need to do a double interpolation ... and just don't have the time, just state, typically you'd double interpolate blah blah blah... but assume worst case number. [Maybe you're between 160 and 180 in a CC table and between two different heights kind of thing.
You'll get almost full marks for skipping the tedium. The numbers are like the points in the old tv show... "Who's Line Is It Anyways" ...
My two cents... rounded to a nickel.
Last edited by a moderator:
